|
|
|
|
|
by ItsMe000001
2801 days ago
|
|
I don't understand the purpose of your reply. You built a straw man which you now attack. I didn't say "data structures don't matter" or whatever else you interpret into my comment. Also read my other reply to another reply. I understand that it is highly unpopular that some particular knowledge is unnecessary - for every piece of knowledge there are people who feel very strongly about it. I guess that's partly because getting the knowledge was quite an effort, and then psychology kicks in, what was hard to obtain has value by that proxy. Makes it hard to talk rationally and calmly about what is actually needed. That's why questions such as what children or students need to learn are so hard, the discussion always becomes extremely heated, and removing anything from the list can only be done against lots of screaming. So sure, me saying that being able to immediately connect some name and immediately have the respective thing, here some algorithm, available without looking it up is not popular maybe not with everybody, but those who are opposed to what I see feel very strongly about it. Unfortunately that includes interpreting things into what I say/write that is not really there. I mean, obviously, a good and thorough education in algorithm fundamentals is extremely valuable. |
|
> I have no intention of becoming or finding good becoming a walking lexicon of obscure algorithms and minutiae.
This implies that you think that heaps are obscure and minutiae. If that wasn't what you meant I'm not sure why you brought it up in a discussion about heaps.
> I understand that it is highly unpopular that some particular knowledge is unnecessary -
what is highly popular today is the idea that knowledge is unnecessary because you can always google it. You can't google what you do not know it exist.